SigP229R
Member
The problem with these jerks is; they have no clue to the damage they have done to the legal CC community. What's more they could probably care less.
But this does endanger the business' prosperity because of the TABC license issue. This has been repeatedly statedThis is the crux of the point I've made myriad times over several years and dozens of posts here, and often find myself at odds with others on the matter. I generally avoid patronizing places that have anti-gun sentiments, but on the occasion that I do for whatever reason, I disregard no weapons signs, and I sleep just fine. They'll never know about it unless I'm forced to use it, and as such it can do no economic harm to their business, which is the only legitimate reason for banning weapons in an open-to-the-public, for-profit business (personal views of ownership are irrelevant when you welcome the general public in asking for their money).
Likewise, I don't believe a profit seeking, open-to-the-public business has the right to regulate any type of possession, attire or other such things unless it negatively affects the safety of employees & patrons or the economic prosperity of the business. Basically, unless it endangers people or drives customers away, it's none of their concern.
In the Chipotle case, the open carriers had asked permission from the establishment to open carry there before they entered. This was and has been standard practice for the group for a long time. The establishment was glad to have their business. No one showed any sign of being "terrified" or complained to the management about the open carriers. Flyers were passed out promoting open carry legislation. This was not the first time they had been in the establishment.
Some isn't really OCT at all but actually some of their copycats
But this does endanger the business' prosperity because of the TABC license issue. This has been repeatedly stated
And, I really don't disagree with you that it was not necessary. I've no doubt that they said what they said for a mix of reasons, ranging from it sounding like exactly what the Moms wanted to hear (playing to their sales base), to it reflecting what I've no doubt are the personal opinions of more than a few in the upper management of Target (to the effect of, "Wow, look at those nuts with those big scary guns!!!"). They took an easy path that didn't require hundreds of hours of their lawyers' time to craft and seemed to speak to the problem. They could have done a better job. If they were gun folks, they probably WOULD have done a better job.
I'm just still a little tickled that they DIDN'T fly off the handle and come out like a cross between Josh Sugarman and an outraged mother hen. And I'm still convinced the mildness of their response speaks volumes about how far WE have come since the '90s. The '90s, when some pop singer could make a half-baked statement about gun sales and a nationwide chain department store would close down their gun counters. Long, long road betwixt here and there.
Shooter,
With all due respect, people are completely missing the point. Target is trying, quite successfully I might add, to limit damage control on a subject that they did not want to address. Target is not Pro 2a or Anti 2a. They are pro employees, pro profit, and pro selling stock. They are faced with a situation they have to publicly deal with because they have no desire to be in the path of such a battle. There first priority, rightfully so, is to their employees and their shareholders. And their collective best interest is to pull Target out of this mess. In doing so they have to take the path that will alienate the fewest amount of people. They chose this path understanding that a very small fraction of a percentage of the population would get hung up in the details while the vast majority of the buying public will forget about it a day after reading it, including the CCW folks that they are, in fact, not banning...
Target spokesman Molly Snyder told the Wire that they are “requesting that people do not carry any firearms in our stores, including concealed carry."
Shooter,
These guys were obligated to understand all the implications of their actions and that means knowing that TABC could pull the licenses of these businesses to sell alcohol. Their coming into the businesses and displaying firearms put the businesses at risk with TABC. The businesses had no other choice but to put a stop to it and the fact that they didn't post against carry and instead requested publically that it stop was the very best compromise they could come up with. Since they can't set policy just for TX they had to do so as a corporation. They deserve our praise for not posting and the folks posting their pics online of them displaying firearms in the businesses deserve all our contempt for not having known these "little" details.
Yea. I see that. But I am going to stick with the position stated on their website by the CEO, not some spokesperson. My guess is their was a mixed message. He is clearly referring to open carry. It says it in the title of the CEOs message to his employees.I don't think most people are missing the point at all. Certainly not myself nor the majority of people here. I am simply dismayed at the support Target is getting from members of this site for requesting that the CC of firearms stop.
Regarding the part I bolded above... According to the statement here:
If the linked information is true, then the OCT folks aren't doing anything wrong at all; it's just media spin.
Jest curious...wonder if the establishment's management said:If the linked information is true, then the OCT folks aren't doing anything wrong at all; it's just media spin.
...I was at the local GUN SHOP a while back, when a "dazzling young urbanite" came in the store with a shotgun tucked close to his side...
penalizing the business for firearms possession inside, but leave zero responsibility for the carrier.
Kinda like carrying at low ready...That doesn't sound like simple "open carrying". More like "open presenting"